Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NEW Editing advice thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mtaylor334
    replied
    Thanks for your quick reply. I will add some contrast and try to lighten. It wasn't backlit, although sun was quite high.

    Cheers
    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by mtaylor334 View Post
    Hi there

    Would someone be kind enough to offer me some advice on the following image:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5909614

    Dark / Underexposed
    Too much or too little contrast
    Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots

    The histogram looks OK to me. Please advise what I should look to change?

    The dust spots did not show up in Lightroom, as far as I recall and are very faint in the check that you have recently added (which is very helpful). I thought that there was some tolerance in place

    Thanks for any advice.

    Cheers
    Mark
    Just a bit dark, but needs more contrast (almost looks backlit). If dust spots are visible unequalized, it will be a rejection no matter how faint they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • mtaylor334
    replied
    Hi there

    Would someone be kind enough to offer me some advice on the following image:

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5909614

    Dark / Underexposed
    Too much or too little contrast
    Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots

    The histogram looks OK to me. Please advise what I should look to change?

    The dust spots did not show up in Lightroom, as far as I recall and are very faint in the check that you have recently added (which is very helpful). I thought that there was some tolerance in place

    Thanks for any advice.

    Cheers
    Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • Julian S.
    replied
    Originally posted by dlowwa View Post
    Not really. I still see this a likely being a contrast rejection. Unless you have specific motivation for wanting this accepted, perhaps best to leave it for the personal collection.
    Thank you very much, ive tried another picture with a darker background.

    Have a nice day!
    Best regards,
    Julian S.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Siddarth.Bhandary View Post
    Hi,

    Need some help with these:

    1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5889565. I leveled the shot using verticals around the Hyatt signage on the roof. That's what I typically use for these angle compositions

    2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5893873. I wanted a nose close up composition. Should I crop more on the left to just the fuselage. My thinking was that it would cut the radar dish and unbalance the picture

    3. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5893864. Are the chocks clutter? Honestly I could not help those from any angle. Composition is for tight nose close up similar to this another pic of mine https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8591135.

    4. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5898361. Based on the discussion in the forum earlier, I was asked to use to vertical lines in the center (light poles in this case) to level the shot. Previously hangar line was used.

    Thanks and regards,
    Siddarth
    1. Verticals are leaning right, needs CCW rotation.
    2. Simply an awkward crop/composition.
    3. Chocks are fine, so shouldn't have been a obstr./clutter rejection, but again awkward crop, especially with the door cut.
    4. This is a very tricky one with conflicting verticals all over the place. Yes, verticals in the center are generally favored, but strong verticals (like buildings) are favored over less reliable ones like light posts. Overall, the ramp in the background does appear to slope right, so some CCW rotation is needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Julian S. View Post
    Thanks James for the info,
    is version N3 better now?
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]7772[/ATTACH]
    Not really. I still see this a likely being a contrast rejection. Unless you have specific motivation for wanting this accepted, perhaps best to leave it for the personal collection.

    Leave a comment:


  • Siddarth.Bhandary
    replied
    Hi,

    Need some help with these:

    1. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5889565. I leveled the shot using verticals around the Hyatt signage on the roof. That's what I typically use for these angle compositions

    2. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5893873. I wanted a nose close up composition. Should I crop more on the left to just the fuselage. My thinking was that it would cut the radar dish and unbalance the picture

    3. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5893864. Are the chocks clutter? Honestly I could not help those from any angle. Composition is for tight nose close up similar to this another pic of mine https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8591135.

    4. https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5898361. Based on the discussion in the forum earlier, I was asked to use to vertical lines in the center (light poles in this case) to level the shot. Previously hangar line was used.

    Thanks and regards,
    Siddarth

    Leave a comment:


  • HarryLi
    replied
    Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post
    I would strongly suggest, not to go that path to delete imperfections, which were added in previous post processing steps. Look for solutions to sharpen a photo without getting jaggies in the first place. There are several helpful tutorials around, also in this forum.
    All right ~

    Leave a comment:


  • Julian S.
    replied
    Originally posted by Julian S. View Post
    Hey Guys, i have a question as well.

    This is rejected due to too much or too little contrast.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]7768[/ATTACH]
    I have reworked it and this is what i have now.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]7769[/ATTACH]
    Is the 2nd Version acceptable now?

    Thanks in advance,
    Julian S.
    Thanks James for the info,
    is version N3 better now?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	ecllr3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	725.8 KB
ID:	1015873

    Thanks in advance again guys!
    Have a nice day,
    Julian S.

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    Originally posted by HarryLi View Post
    Do you know how to use eraser to erase the jaggy after sharpening? I think it is a good way to avoid jaggys.
    Originally posted by Nito View Post
    Please show how to erase jaggies after sharpening, it's good to know!
    I would strongly suggest, not to go that path to delete imperfections, which were added in previous post processing steps. Look for solutions to sharpen a photo without getting jaggies in the first place. There are several helpful tutorials around, also in this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by Nito View Post
    Please show how to erase jaggies after sharpening, it's good to know!
    I'd advise against anything that might result in a rejection (or worse) for manipulation.

    Leave a comment:


  • dlowwa
    replied
    Originally posted by DirtyCrow View Post
    Got rejection for backlit on this
    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=5899258

    I am a beginner and not sure about this, but i thought backlit is if the sun is behind the aircraft. In this case the sun was somewhere between pilots 1 and 2 o`clock.
    Can someone tell me, what backlit in this particular case means?
    Look at the tail. It is completely in shadow = backlit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nito
    replied
    Originally posted by ErezS View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't know how to do this. I'm not an editing expert.
    Please show how to erase jaggies after sharpening, it's good to know!

    Leave a comment:


  • B7772ADL
    replied
    Originally posted by Julian S. View Post
    Hey Guys, i have a question as well.

    This is rejected due to too much or too little contrast.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]7768[/ATTACH]
    I have reworked it and this is what i have now.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]7769[/ATTACH]
    Is the 2nd Version acceptable now?

    Thanks in advance,
    Julian S.
    Hi, it's better than the original but I think it could do with a little more boost with the contrast.

    Leave a comment:


  • Julian S.
    replied
    Hey Guys, i have a question as well.

    This is rejected due to too much or too little contrast.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	ecllr.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	694.2 KB
ID:	1015869
    I have reworked it and this is what i have now.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	ecllr2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	732.2 KB
ID:	1015870
    Is the 2nd Version acceptable now?

    Thanks in advance,
    Julian S.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X